Sharad Madhav Shirsath vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4533 Bom

                                           {1}
                                                                     wp 8105.14.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                           
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO.8105 OF 2014




                                                   
     Sharad S/o Madhav Shirsath,
     age: 21 years, occu: student,




                                                  
     R/o R-215, Tornagad Nagar,
     N-2 Cidco, Aurangabad                                            Petitioner




                                        
              Versus

     1        The State of Maharashtra
                             
              Through its Secretary,
              Department of Social Welfare
              Mantralaya, Mumbai -32
                            
     2        The Divisional Caste Verification
              Committee No.1, Aurangabad division,
              Aurangabad                                           Respondents

Mr. K.F. Shingare advocate for the petitioner

_______________

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & K.L. WADANE, JJ

(Date : 8th August, 2016.)

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: R.M. Borde, J)

1 Heard.

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties taken up for final

{2} wp 8105.14.odt

decision at admission stage.

3 The petitioner claims to belong to Kunbi caste, which is

included in other backward class category (OBC). At the request

of the petitioner, he was issued a caste certificate, certifying that,

he belongs to Kunbi caste by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mehekar

on 25.9.2009. The caste certificate issued to the petitioner was

referred for verification to respondent No.2 scrutiny committee in

the year 2010-2011. The scrutiny committee has, however, after

considering evidence placed on record, directed invalidation of the

caste certificate issued to the petitioner.

4 The scrutiny committee has recorded adverse finding mainly

for the reason that in the school record of the father of the

petitioner his caste is recorded as Maratha and not Kunbi. The

petitioner places reliance on his own school record and the school

record of his sister, wherein entry in respect of caste has been

recorded as Kunbi. He also places reliance on the caste validation

certificate issued to his cousin Ramkisan Gulabrao Shirsath. Entry

recorded in the revenue/record in respect of agricultural property

belonging to grand father of the petitioner also reflects his caste

as Kunbi. The petitioner also places reliance on the caste

validation certificate issued in favour of one Rajiv Bhagwan

{3} wp 8105.14.odt

Shirsath who is claimed to be a near relation of the petitioner.

5 We have perused the Judgment & order passed by the

scrutiny committee. The scrutiny committee has refused to place

reliance on the evidence in the nature of revenue entry in the

name of grand father of the petitioner on the ground that, the

petitioner has failed to establish his relationship with him. The

scrutiny committee came to the conclusion that, in view of the

adverse entry in the school record of the father of the petitioner,

he is not entitled to claim validation certificate. The scrutiny

committee, however, has not considered the evidence in the form

of caste validation certificate issued to the cousin brother of the

petitioner. An affidavit of Madhav, the father of the petitioner has

been placed on record, wherein, he has recorded genealogy of the

family. The real brother of Madhav is one Gulab and validity holder

Ramkisan is his son. Apart from this, the petitioner has placed on

record copy of the caste validation certificate issued in favour his

real sister Pooja Madhav, by the scrutiny committee at Akola on

24.4.2015. Since the real sister of the petitioner has been issued

validation certificate by the competent authority, there is no

reason as to why claim raised by the petitioner for issuance of

validation certificate should be turned down.

{4} wp 8105.14.odt

6 Reliance is placed on the reported judgment of Division

Bench of this Court in the matter of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale

Vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others,

reported in 2010 (6) MhLJ 401. The Division Bench of this Court, in

the matter arising out of similar facts and circumstances, has observed

that:

"... The matters pertaining to validity of caste have a great impact on the candidate as well as

on the future generations in many matters varying from marriage to education and enjoyment, and

therefore where a committee has given a finding about the validity of the caste of a candidate another committee ought not to refuse the same status to a blood relative who applies. A merely

different view on the same facts would not entitle the committee dealing with the subsequent caste claim to reject it. There is, however, no doubt as observed by us earlier that if a committee is of the view that the earlier certificate is obtained by

fraud it would not be bound to follow the earlier caste validity certificate and is entitled to refuse

the caste claim and also in addition initiate proceedings for cancellation of the earlier order."

7 Similarly, taking note of the judgment in the matter of

Apoorva (cited supra), the Division Bench of this Court at

Nagpur, in the matter of Mayur Shamrao Nannaware Vs.

Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee &

others, reported in 2014 (4) Bom.C.R. 730, has observed in

paragraph 9 of the judgment, that the Caste Scrutiny Committee

is a quasi judicial authority constituted under the Maharashtra

{5} wp 8105.14.odt

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta

Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special

Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance of Verification of)

Caste Certificate Act, 2000, and the Scrutiny Committee cannot

give a go bye to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

and this Court on the issues which fall for consideration before the

Caste Scrutiny Committee. It has also been observed by the

Division Bench that, it has been repeatedly said in several

judgments that if the Caste Validity Certificate is issued in favour

of father, brother, sister, real blood relatives, then the Caste

Validity Certificate should be issued to the candidate unless the

Caste Scrutiny Committee comes to a definite view that the earlier

Caste Validity Certificate in respect of near blood relatives are

obtained by submitting forged and fabricated documents and/or

obtained by misrepresentation.

8 In the instant matter, it has not been demonstrated that the

petitioner has relied on any false, fabricated document or has

misled committee for substantiating the claim.

9 In view of the decision cited supra, we are of the considered

opinion that the claim of the petitioner for issuance of validation

certificate, ought to be considered favourably.

{6} wp 8105.14.odt

10 In view of above, the order passed by the scrutiny

committee on 13.2.2012 invalidating the caste certificate issued

to the petitioner is quashed and set aside and respondent No.2 is

directed to issue the caste validation certificate to the petitioner

as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight

months from today.

     11       Rule is made absolute in above terms.



                             
              There shall be no order as to costs.
                            
                  (K.L. WADANE, J)                    (R.M.BORDE, J)
      
   



     vbd